Re: [mpls] Need more clarification for the draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection
Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com> Thu, 16 April 2015 21:17 UTC
Return-Path: <huubatwork@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF8A1A8A8A for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OXpohoVfnZ1l for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A71711A8A81 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by widjs5 with SMTP id js5so20578734wid.1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CEds6GHNesy1tbPzE5HTtq/6bPZmCzG7wi2vFNA4gEY=; b=r+O5Zv4qlxOo6dCqIOqALLqbE4fBUc+5+7gb3SK4uMOM18Og03ffPpvVGFu8Jmvowh 3Y65+nX+WsUtnQCJn+/BB4t6wPHDTkEkVBSvkgp1cbYjnmfMiHS2cTVUwUqfkPDc3IVk dOLkHqVzU88TWLNcA/65mMHBJLH2jlkH3GCLRHFBShq/BCyMn6k0M7ishw+vrfUhYs9w uGdAzJ4UMzrhpwgNzauzLhx1ejh/i3qVJC1xc/oKftwPy5nWvIG/EY7tPG9pHPSg/keg 7J9aiFVgX1lCxngHUtXlYhpofr10PZZ2HtN++sUmgvA5Cd4evd4wROGos10EIoz8bnkC oruA==
X-Received: by 10.180.106.131 with SMTP id gu3mr242054wib.16.1429219020484; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from McAsterix.local (g215085.upc-g.chello.nl. [80.57.215.85]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id go4sm27604908wib.1.2015.04.16.14.16.59 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <553026CA.80508@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:16:58 +0200
From: Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Spencer Jackson <Spence.Jackson@pmcs.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <5E6B9C6C95BED441A489C1836E08EF93A659FEA2@BBYEXM01.pmc-sierra.internal>
In-Reply-To: <5E6B9C6C95BED441A489C1836E08EF93A659FEA2@BBYEXM01.pmc-sierra.internal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/8IUXCRSs1TJUJLaWPwy3UqL6mP0>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Need more clarification for the draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: huubatwork@gmail.com
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:17:03 -0000
Hello Spence,
You wrote:
> Dear authors of draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection_04,
>
> Section 5.1 states that RPS requests are required to be sent in both
> directions. Does this mean on the paired working/protection paths
> (RcW/RaP or RaW/RcP), or on the clockwise and anti-clockwise protection
> paths (RcP/RaP)?
It is the latter.
The reason is that in case the working path fails the protection
protocol continues to work and will be able to coordinate the
protection switch.
This is the same reason why in linear protection the PSC is sent on
the protection paths.
Best regards, Huub.
--
*****************************************************************
请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样
- [mpls] Need more clarification for the draft-chen… Spencer Jackson
- Re: [mpls] Need more clarification for the draft-… Huub van Helvoort